Luther

Rating:
Summary: The Reformer
Review: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience."

~ Martin Luther / Diet of Worms, April 1521

_______

Martin Luther - late medieval European monk, priest, scholar and preacher - was the founder of a full-scale `Reformation' from within Catholicism (the first major movement to mark the end of what is called the Dark Ages). His life's work and influence became central to the development of Western civilization. For that, he has been called the most influential German who ever lived.

Luther was born in Eisleben, of Saxony, Germany, on 10 November 1483. His father desired that he become a lawyer, and early on Martin pursued legal studies, to that end gaining entrance into the University of Erfurt in 1501. However, as it would happen (or so he wrote in his :Tischreden:), in early July 1505, he was walking home ... only to be overcome by a thunderstorm, and shouted: "Help me, St. Anne, I'll become a monk!" He then joined the Augustinian Hermits at Erfurt, foregoing any career in law. In 1507, he was ordained a priest. Many a monk were supposed, through much hard prayer, fasting and self-inflicted pain, to have found favor with God. Luther, however, continually feared the "terror and agony of sudden death," according to his later :De Votis Monasticis:. His own conversion - the nature of which involved personal trust in Jesus Christ for the divine `favor' and salvation he had been seeking - seems to have occurred around 1509 when, pouring over Psalms and Paul, he came to discover that forgiveness of sin was a gift to be received, by faith, not some high-up goal for which to toil and slave ritualisticly. Luther received a doctorate in theology in 1512, upon which he began a career teaching biblical exposition at Wittenberg University. Two of his most paramount motifs were salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and Scripture as the only abiding authority (sola scriptura). He took issue with the Roman Church on a wide number of points, but none stirred it to action as much as did one action in the fall of 1517. In response to the grossly exaggerated peddling of indulgences by Dominican monk Johann Tetzel (undertaken obstensibly to repair St. Peter's Basilica in Rome), he drafted a lengthy list of necessary disagreements with standard doctrine. According to tradition, on October 31 - All Saint's eve - Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, in full view of the public. (Among the many points were his insistence that Christian repentance was holistic and his emphasis that the church's truest treasure was the Gospel.) The archbishop of Mainz passed the theses along to Rome. Almost the immediate reaction was a student-led burning of his writings. For the rest of the decade, Luther often stressed a "theology of the cross," that is, Christ as crucified. Rome eventually published a papal bull (:Exsurge Domine:) against Luther, which he personally burned in front of Wittenberg's Elster Gate: "Because you have corrupted God's truth, may God destroy you in this fire." His three tractal works - "Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," "A Prelude to the Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and "Of the Freedom of the Christian Man" - only heightened the problem for Rome. Luther, all the while, thought himself restrained in his denunciations. By 1521, he had more or less sent Germany into an uproar against, among other things, the papacy, which published a bull stating his official excommunication. And at the formal diet, held this year in Worms, Martin Luther stood face to face with emperor and pope. It was demanded of him that he retract statements from many of his writings. When Luther refused, and gave a simple reason for the refusal, he was dismissed from company but declared an outlaw, with a condemnatory sentence passed on his writings. The event actually became a victory for Luther, who had sought something like the impartiality of the audience there present. But matters, especially political ones, were not so simple. Despite enormous popularity, Luther had made serious enemies. His efforts to `reform' the Church came at a high price, and his very life was endangered more than once. On one occasion, while he was traveling, a band of loyalists `kidnapped' him from his wagon (because the roads could be very dangerous); they then holed him up to keep him safe from suspected enemies. Over the years, Luther continued his work as a scholar, writing for the public, creating Bibles and other materials in the peoples' own language of German. In addition to the writings listed above, eventually published were his University lectures on the biblical books of Psalms (1513-15), Romans (1515-16), Galatians (1516-17), and Hebrews (1517-18). When in 1546 he died, the movement he ignited was very well on its way to becoming a worldwide phenomenon.

MGM's 2003 release, LUTHER, attempts to re-enact this life, and gets some deal right. This is not a bad movie; yet it could have been better. For one thing, the historical Martin Luther was an unusually bold individual. While we experience some of this in Fiennes' portrayal, we don't sense that deep-seated conviction Martin Luther must have possessed (one of Roger Ebert's points). Fiennes does well at bringing out Luther's intellectual side, but one would nonetheless like to see the FIRE! in his eyes.

Fortunately for LUTHER, there are other areas in which the creative license employed is not extravagant: Luther has a chat with the elector Frederick, despite that there is no record of any such meeting (it is possible, though I'm not sure where likelihood actually falls). Also, there is an early abundance of Luther ranting alone: to himself, to God, to Satan. As a young priest, Martin Luther did struggle with the notions of sin, judgment, and the mercy of God, as well as an anger and hatred toward such a god, so he very well may have had similar private moments. However, the movie goes further to suggest that some of this spilled over into his later, more presumably assured, life.

While I'm not certain as to what else Martin Luther experts might say about these things, it seems most will point out that it would perhaps have been helpful, indeed appropriate, to have had LUTHER devote more time to :sola fide: (faith alone, a kind of motto for the doctrine of justification by faith). This was a MAJOR point of his, over against the revived proto-Pelagianism (to borrow and revise Tom Wright's term) of the current Roman church.

But what makes the least sense was Fiennes' admitted decision to show us a Luther who has some underlying doubt or reserve. If he wanted to add something `else' to the persona, doubt was the wrong element. Serious biographical movies have a responsibility to paint their characters with historically accurate colors; thus to visualize, and then commit to film, a Luther who is rather doubtful - when so much of the historical Luther's behavior and personality ran clearly in the opposite direction - hardly advances the art or task of responsible movie-making.

On the upside, Sir Peter Ustinov is amusing to watch as Frederick the Wise, and takes his character more seriously than do most others. Alfred Molina is likewise very good as Tetzel who, as a clerical puppet, feels at times like a sincere theological overstatement. And I imagine most of the apparel used was appropriate to the time.

The DVD contains the original theatrical trailer and explanatory snippets from four of the major actors: Joseph Fiennes, Claire Cox, Alfred Molina, and Peter Ustinov.

Rating:
Summary: Luther is a Beautiful and Inspirational Film
Review: After my pastor mentioning this movie in church a few weeks ago, I made a note to myself to watch Luther. My pastor has a doctorate in theology and says one of his minors is in Martin Luther history. He really likes Luther and the stand he took against the Catholic church. Although he's not a Luthern preacher, he stated that this movie is about 80% correct. In Hollywood, I feel this is a great score for historical accuracy.

I'm a staunch Christian and teach seventh grade history to middle school students. While watching this movie, I immediately wanted to show this superb show to my students. It was awesome. I could feel the schism between the reformers and the Catholic church as I listened to the musical score. There are chanting voices that are at war with eerieness. The costumes were rich with beauty and authenticity. The acting was full of emotion and each character served a purpose in furthering the plot and gaining the audience's heart.

I really couldn't find fault in this movie. If anything, I wanted to see more film footage on the DVD extras. I now believe I'll buy the movie soundtrack and have students use the score for their Power Point presentations. Christians need to buy this movie and show it to their children and families. We live in a country that forgets about how hard it was to gain our Christian freedoms and Luther was the first to protest tyranny. God has used this historical figure to change the world and make it a better place.

The scenerary, camera angles, story, and dialogue were powerful and moving to my heart. I've always been fond of the movie Braveheart, and after seeing Luther, I found even more emotion for this world-changer. It's hard to capture the life of one giant in two hours, but this movie excels in bringing Martin Luther to the hearts and minds of the twenty-first century. I know people should study more of their heritage, but most won't do it. Yet this movie might make them more aware of the impact Luther had on the world and dig deeper into their history books.

The sound mixers did a wonderful job of pounding the hammer noise into my ears as Luther posted his list of grievances against the Catholic church.

My major disappointment is not against this DVD, but I now wish I had known about Luther when it came out in theaters. Luther is the type of film that deserves to be heralded as a fantastic film based soundly on history.

Watch this film if you're a Christian. Watch this film if you like great historical films. Watch this film if you like good movies period.

Rating:
Summary: Not accurate; read the Richard Marius biography
Review: Despite its production by a branch of the Lutheran church, "Luther" the movie has only passing basis in Luther the man. We see the scandal of selling indulgences, which Luther rightly opposed. And we're told that many in the Church hierarchy agreed with Luther that the sales must be ended.

The movie shows one of the first big results of Luther's new doctrines: the deaths of from 50,000 to 100,000 peasants (the numbers used in the film) who took Luther literally, read their Bibles as he advised, revolted, and were suppressed by the princes, including the Protestant ones, with the support of Luther. The movie doesn't show Luther's support of the suppression, nor that he wasn't about to go against the Protestant princes who had supported him. We see Philip of Hesse, but not Luther allowing Philip's bigamy because Luther again didn't want to oppose a political patron. We also don't see the German princes looting and burning the monasteries as would Henry VIII in England, acts of supreme vandalism and barbarism.

The movie only hints at the real problems Rome had with Luther over the Mass, which he shelved, and their interpretations of original sin. The film also breaks off before Luther's bitter old age, especially his descent into extreme anti-Semitism and scatological attacks on the Catholic Church and the Pope, some of which is translated in the Marius biography.

Finally, in 1517, almost everybody in Europe was Christian; today, less than 10% are. I doubt Luther quite expected things to turn out this way.



Rating:
Summary: Excellent treatment of the great Reformer!
Review: I saw this movie in the theater, loved it, and made a note to buy it when it came out on DVD. I had to wait more than a year for the DVD, but it was worth the wait. This film is very well done, moves briskly, tells the story it needs to tell, never gets boring or talky, and is just very entertaining. This isn't just for Lutherans, but for everyone interested in church history or, for that matter, the history of western civilization.

This is probably the best version of Luther's life available. There was a 1975 film starring Stacy Keach (who did an excellent job), but that was a transcription of a stage play by John Osborne, and thus feels very stage-bound and non-cinematic. The 1953 version I've never seen and thus cannot comment on. But this latest version, with Joseph Fiennes, Alfred Molina, Jonathan Firth, Claire Cox, and the late Sir Peter Ustinov, I can recommend very highly.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful, eloquent, brilliant film with a perfect cast!
Review: I was impressed watching this film how extremely well made it is, and how beautifully shot a lot of the scenes were. One gets a feeling while watching it that we're back in the 1500s, witnessing events for ourselves. I really don't know about any of the controversy surrounding this film, as I only discovered it on DVD recently. I watched, curious to know about Martin Luther, since I know so little about him, and how the Protestant Reformation came into being.

Joseph Fiennes is perfect in his performance as Martin Luther. At times, he can be studiously serious, while at others, playful and funny, as well as stone cold defiant and stubborn. We see glimpses of his self-berating abuse, his boldness in questioning certain religious practices (particularly the selling of indulgences), and his refusal to recant his 95 Theses. My favorite scene is when he is giving a lecture, poking fun at all the believers who buy religious relics that were claimed to be from Christ's time, and how the indulgences bought will save relatives from the eternal torments of hell. In that scene, he speaks in an interesting manner, quite amusing and one can't help but laugh along with him.

This film is exactly how to make a historical film (in contrast to the dismally dark "King Arthur" with its focus on battle scenes at the expense of plot and dialogue). If only more films would be made of this caliber, of historical topics (a film about Galileo, anyone?) that are just as relevant today. This film sets the bar quite high because it is simply brilliant and beautifully done. Remarkable! Churches especially should encourage members to see this film, and discuss in Sunday School issues of today and how they relate to what Martin Luther did (being able to see what's truly relevant from what is merely church dogma meant to control people instead of actually help people). Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant!!!
Review: Joseph Fiennes plays Luther in this brilliant film. We watch him rise from obscurity into the leading voice of the Reformation, although he made it clear that he really didn't want to destroy the Catholic Church. He merely wanted to "clean up" the practice of selling indulgences, and the scenes in the film which show the masses being hoodwinked into giving their hard earned cash for some religious gimmick will chill your soul. It's no wonder Luther rose to the occasion and challenged the Powers that Were. If he hadn't, someone else would have.

A fine film, and it covers much of Luther's life and is true to the historical narrative. A highly recommended movie!!!

Rating:
Summary: Weak film, but it gave me a history lesson
Review: This 2003 film is about Martin Luther, a man who lived from 1483 to 1546 and is credited with being the father of the Protestant religion. Joseph Fiennes is cast as the title role. He's a good actor, but he just doesn't come across with the degree of passion that must have inspired the real Martin Luther, a German monk who defied the power of Rome. At that time, the Church was everything and there were abuses everywhere. Most notably was the selling of "indulgences" which meant that for a money donation to the Church, an individual could "buy" himself or a relative out of purgatory. Martin Luther saw the absurdity of this and wrote a paper which he nailed to the church wall. This, of course, angered Rome. A bloody war followed where more than 50,000 people were killed.

This is an over-simplification, of course. There were many nuances to the upheaval at the time. Frederick the Great, played by Peter Ustinov, was the German king. He is presented as an over-indulged child who loves to play with his power. But he believes in Martin Luther and supports him throughout. He takes delight in challenging Rome and eventually breaking away from the Church. Seemingly, now, religion was to belong to the common people because Martin Luther translated the bible into German.

Everything is just a little too pat, especially Martin Luther's romance and marriage to a former nun near the end of the film. Even though history tells us that he did marry and have children, their relationship seemed much too modern to have happened that way.

I must say though that in spite of the film's weaknesses, which included some slow parts, I did enjoy it. I think that was because it brought me to an era which I know little about and gave me a history lesson, even though it was revisionist.

Rating:
Summary: A Fine Film
Review: This film appealed to me as both a amateur historian and a Christian, as well as a movie-goer. Yes, there are a few bits of dramatic license, but nothing that takes away from Martin Luther's story. Those who say the film is anti-catholic need to stop seeing everything through 21st century eyes. All churches have done evil at some point, because they are run by humans who make mistakes. A group of Catholic extremists are killing protestant ministers in Columbia as you read this review, but showing it on CNN doesn't defame the Pope nor attack the millions of worshippers who practice their religion with love and tolerance. Glossing over the history we find uncomfortable undermines its value to us. The film tells the story well, and those who know little of history and/or religion may be sparked to discover more. If it makes you think, it's a good film...

Rating:
Summary: A painless introduction to an important period in history
Review: This movie is a moving portrayal of one of the most important historical figures of all time. The movie tells the story of a Catholic Church using fire and brimstone sermons to scare poor people into paying for indulgences (e.g. selling a "get out of hell free" letter to the mother of a crippled child). Luther courageously denounces these abuses under threat of execution by an omnipresent, repressive Catholic Church.

Some reviewers have noted that the corruption and greed of the Catholic Church at the time was not worse than the protestant televangelist swindlers of today. Of course this is true, and it diminishes Luther's accomplishment, but it doesn't really diminish Luther's personal story as portrayed in the movie. While the founders of new religions may have good intentions, organized religions tend to evolve into greedy bureaucracies over time. This is the story for another movie.

I'm not sure what to make of the complaints about anti-Catholicism. The inquisition was horrifying. Are movies about the holocaust anti-German?

Several reviews have noted disturbing historical inaccuracies. Like most movies, the hero's flaws have been airbrushed here. However, if you are prepared to take it in with a grain of salt, Luther is a painless introduction to an important period in history.


Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies I Have Ever Seen
Review: This movie is spectacular.

Many historical films are bad - either gross (Alexander the Great), unintentionally ridiculous (Nostradamus), or boring (Julius Caesar).

In this film, Martin Luther comes alive. It shows his younger years when he was a sincere but rather niave monk who accepted without question the dictates of the church, including the papal indulgences. It paints a vivid, beautiful picture of how he gradually saw the corruption in the church, and set out to inform the pope of this with his famous 95 thesis posted to the Wittenburg church door. Only when he realized the highest echelons of the church were in the corruption did he began his courageous fight against the corruption, which led to the sweeping changes of the reformation. The scene where the 95 theses are posted on the church door is stunning, and the scene near the end where the German princes offer to be beheaded rather than sacrifice their beliefs is incredibly moving.

This film shows Luther in a very human, flesh and blood light by bluntly portraying his growth and development, his courage in the face of excommunication and threat of death, his physical illnesses, his guilt and depression over the peasant revolt, and his severe depression over these things. His marriage to Kate is drawn in a touching, moving manner. The portrayal of his weaknesses as well as his strengths makes him even more admirable, and makes the viewer realize how tremendously he suffered, and sacrificed, for his God.

The acting is superb. Fiennes is incredible - he makes a strong yet very human Luther. Alfred Molina is believable and adds some humor as the seller of indulgences, and Ulrich, Luther's spiritual father (can't remember the name) and in fact all of the secondary roles were also very well portrayed. Sir Peter Ustinov was stunning in his last great role, as Frederick the Wise.

I do not think this film was "anti-Catholic" any more than "The Crucible" is "anti-protestant". Instead, this film shows that when religious organizations get too tied in with politics, as the Catholic Church did in the 1500s, the politics inevitably introduce corruption into the religious organization. This is a lesson which modern-day Protestants would be very wise to heed.

My only wish is that "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" would have been played in the final credits.

I would strongly recommend this film.